There are several problems with this demonstration. The laser is the wrong color. The phone is the wrong brand. The mirror wasn't shiny enough. The countertop had two holes in it. You've just proven Our Glorious Flat Earth™! In other news, this demonstration is fantastic. You did something quite extraordinary (and unexpected): showing the far edge of the countertop with the laser, even though the angular size of that patch is ridiculously small! In other words, the exact opposite of what Gary Wybenga is always saying! Nicely done. 🙂
Ha! In my rough quick calculation, the angular size of the laser spot on the counter top at the far point would be about 0.0002 degrees or so. That would be about 1/200th of a single pixel! Waaay below the resolution limit of the camera. And yet still visible.
You demonstrated nicely.Looks to me like another 30 or 40 feet and your light would not show up to the camera.Your camera was already showing less and less of the light in that short distance
@@brianleake7762 Consequence of light bending up, is it makes things APPEAR lower than they actually are -- the more so the greater upwards bending path of the light. So if the more so light is further away, it'll be taking a greater bent upwards path to the observer, making it appear more lower than it is This also (atleast for concave earth) explains the horizon dip as we go more up and up. To when you're in ISS territory, it "appears" like a convex globe but it isn't. Even sunsets and the like are explained with this same reason. The sun moon and planets are orbiting the celestial sphere up above us. They are small and contained within the earth, so why don't we look up and see Halo Earth and see the other side? The reason for this is because again light is bending up. The other side of the world the light never reaches the observer because it bends up towards the center of the earth....and the stars and sun seem to envelop us and go beneath us, but that's only because of an illusion caused by the upwards bending light. Rather than look up and see the celeestial sphere, its light is warped and bent around us like a tent... For concave earth, when we see boats bottoming out, it's really the light bending up at a ggreater rate than the curvature of the earth itself. THe difference between them makes it appear like its curving down but it isn't
@brianleake7762 Consequence of light bending up, is it makes things APPEAR lower than they actually are -- the more so the greater upwards bending path of the light. So if the more so light is further away, it'll be taking a greater bent upwards path to the observer, making it appear more lower than it is This also (atleast for concave earth) explains the horizon dip as we go more up and up. To when you're in ISS territory, it "appears" like a convex globe but it isn't. Even sunsets and the like are explained with this same reason. The sun moon and planets are orbiting the celestial sphere up above us. They are small and contained within the earth, so why don't we look up and see Halo Earth and see the other side? The reason for this is because again light is bending up. The other side of the world the light never reaches the observer because it bends up towards the center of the earth....and the stars and sun seem to envelop us and go beneath us, but that's only because of an illusion caused by the upwards bending light. Rather than look up and see the celeestial sphere, its light is warped and bent around us like a tent... For concave earth, when we see boats bottoming out, it's really the light bending up at a ggreater rate than the curvature of the earth itself. THe difference between them makes it appear like its curving down but it isn't
The laser spot should have appeared less bright at greater distance because the extreme angle means that only a very thin sliver is visible to the camera. This is just geometry. But the important thing is that every bit of the surface is still visible. You say I needed "another 30 or 40 feet." How do you determine that? If I did it with 50 more feet, would you just say I needed another 100 feet? And so on? The fact is, when I'm at 58 foot observer height at the boat launch, the horizon is about 9 miles away. On the scale model, the eye-height was 1.5mm above the surface, and by the same ratio as real life shows at 58ft observer height, the horizon should have been at 4.2 feet. And yet it wasn't anywhere even in 9 feet. 58 feet / 9.3 miles = 0.0011811665 1.5mm / 4.167 feet = 0.00118100788 So what gives? I recreate an exact scale model of a real-world observation I have, and it doesn't work. What basis do you have for saying I need more distance? I've got more than TWICE the distance I should need. Do you have some mathematical formula that predicts this phenomena? Or do you just say "Well if it didn't work you need to make it bigger because earth is flat and so it has to work on flat earth?" I mean I realize it's a tough point for flat earth. If you can't create a horizon on a flat surface without using bending light and temperature gradients, then you have no explanation for sunsets or bottom up obstruction in reality. But at the end of the day, as honest people, we need to come to grips with the fact that flat surfaces in and of themselves may not actually cause horizons like you think they do.
You truly have a saintly amount of patience with the Earth Awakening crowd! Listening to Geo, at the moment, trying to tell you how to do surveying when he clearly has not studied it (he was wrong about the geodetic process as well) it's a toss up as to whether, aside from hubris, he's blinded by massive confirmation bias or it's a blatant case of Dunning Krueger. Whatever the case, you have to feel at least a little bit insulted in their refusal to acknowledge the countless hours you have put into studying the subject material, as well as purchasing and practicing with a variety of precision instruments. I seriously doubt that there is any measurement you could make, no matter how precise and carefully done, that would sway their (seemingly) cult like beliefs.
Above all, Geo is clearly NOT arguing in good faith as he simply delivers monologues peppered with what seem to be rhetorical questions while never allowing you time to answer any questions or explain, in detail, the procedures that you've used. Maddening to listen to and I doubt I'd be able to remain calm under those circumstances.
Yeah, but your table is too short to exhibit the "vanishing point" 😉 🥞 Jokes aside, I've encountered that talking-point before but it's pretty meaningless and is thus it is effectively an invalid cointrtargument.
Yup, that's what I'm getting... Even though at 58ft my horizon is around 9 miles on the water, at 1.5mm observer height the horizon should be at 4.5feet... But it's not.. So they just say "You gotta do it bigger" but they provide no logical or mathematical reason as to why, or as to how much bigger.
What did Jesus mean by the stars will fall from heaven: He meant what He said, the stars will fall from heaven. And in Isaiah and Revelation when we are told all the stars of heaven will fall like as leaves from the vine and figs from the trees to the earth. For God is not pleased without faith. I'm a chief sinner, Jesse. These analogies speak to me as though a child, that which we must be to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't hear my Father's voice coming from your CZcams Channel or from you, and I know His voice, and I follow Him, and He knows me by name, and where ever He lead there shall I be. Thankyou Jesus my God and Father for sending the message through me.
Oh, Jesse. He he. You’re so clouded in your mind. Your limitation here is the counter top length. It’s always distance and angles, and your set up is too short.
@@fromjessemore than you have here Dude. Equal temperature. That’s hilarious. Also, who says flat surfaces “inherently” cause anything? Who? When we are looking out over the water to the horizon, it is not the surface causing anything. Ok? The surface is circumstantial, just like the sky. The cause of the limitation of view is always distance and elevation/angle, and the conditions of the medium. Have you seen SKYFREE? They do micro demos where they create horizons in their home as well as out in the field. Take a look at their work.
@@theplanetruth > _Have you seen SKYFREE? They do micro demos_ I have. They used a WARM FLOOR under COLD AIR. Not equal temperature. Light curves towards the more dense region, so of course the warm floor would have a horizon under cold air. But the fact is, we have horizons on the ocean and lakes all the time when the water is not warmer than the air. > _more than you have here Dude._ Well, if you don't know how much, then how can you say I don't have enough? If I doubled it, you'd still say not enough. Your only criteria is that if it doesn't show what you wish it showed, it isn't enough. But that's circular logic. That's affirming the consequent: You're using your belief in flat earth to prove flat earth.
Ugh. You’re so tedious dude. You have claims here YOUVE NOT PROVEN. How about start with those. Look back at your comment and find your claims about bendy this and temperature that, and demonstrate your claim. The fact that you doubled down on the distance comment that I made, it’s just proof you’re thick as a brick dude
Ugh. You’re so tedious dude. You have claims here YOUVE NOT PROVEN. How about start with those. Look back at your comment and find your claims about bendy this and temperature that, and demonstrate your claim. The fact that you doubled down on the distance comment that I made, it’s just proof you’re thick as a brick dude. And no, if you doubled your distance I wouldn’t say that…bc you haven’t doubled your distance yet. So, put up, or shut up.
A sharp horizon is impossible on a space pizza.
The flerfs can go to the shore and get up 20ft or however high they want to. The ships will still disappear bottom first over the horizon.
Ffs
There are several problems with this demonstration. The laser is the wrong color. The phone is the wrong brand. The mirror wasn't shiny enough. The countertop had two holes in it. You've just proven Our Glorious Flat Earth™!
In other news, this demonstration is fantastic. You did something quite extraordinary (and unexpected): showing the far edge of the countertop with the laser, even though the angular size of that patch is ridiculously small! In other words, the exact opposite of what Gary Wybenga is always saying! Nicely done. 🙂
Ha! In my rough quick calculation, the angular size of the laser spot on the counter top at the far point would be about 0.0002 degrees or so. That would be about 1/200th of a single pixel! Waaay below the resolution limit of the camera. And yet still visible.
@@fromjesse It must be magic. That laser should have disappeared into the vanishing point, according to the laws of Flerspective.
If you ask Oakley, the flat table proves earth is flat. Especially if you use it to get an angle of elevation.
You demonstrated nicely.Looks to me like another 30 or 40 feet and your light would not show up to the camera.Your camera was already showing less and less of the light in that short distance
Lights bending up
@@ConcaveHollowEarth seems to be
@@brianleake7762 Consequence of light bending up, is it makes things APPEAR lower than they actually are -- the more so the greater upwards bending path of the light.
So if the more so light is further away, it'll be taking a greater bent upwards path to the observer, making it appear more lower than it is
This also (atleast for concave earth) explains the horizon dip as we go more up and up. To when you're in ISS territory, it "appears" like a convex globe but it isn't.
Even sunsets and the like are explained with this same reason. The sun moon and planets are orbiting the celestial sphere up above us. They are small and contained within the earth, so why don't we look up and see Halo Earth and see the other side? The reason for this is because again light is bending up. The other side of the world the light never reaches the observer because it bends up towards the center of the earth....and the stars and sun seem to envelop us and go beneath us, but that's only because of an illusion caused by the upwards bending light. Rather than look up and see the celeestial sphere, its light is warped and bent around us like a tent...
For concave earth, when we see boats bottoming out, it's really the light bending up at a ggreater rate than the curvature of the earth itself. THe difference between them makes it appear like its curving down but it isn't
@brianleake7762 Consequence of light bending up, is it makes things APPEAR lower than they actually are -- the more so the greater upwards bending path of the light.
So if the more so light is further away, it'll be taking a greater bent upwards path to the observer, making it appear more lower than it is
This also (atleast for concave earth) explains the horizon dip as we go more up and up. To when you're in ISS territory, it "appears" like a convex globe but it isn't.
Even sunsets and the like are explained with this same reason. The sun moon and planets are orbiting the celestial sphere up above us. They are small and contained within the earth, so why don't we look up and see Halo Earth and see the other side? The reason for this is because again light is bending up. The other side of the world the light never reaches the observer because it bends up towards the center of the earth....and the stars and sun seem to envelop us and go beneath us, but that's only because of an illusion caused by the upwards bending light. Rather than look up and see the celeestial sphere, its light is warped and bent around us like a tent...
For concave earth, when we see boats bottoming out, it's really the light bending up at a ggreater rate than the curvature of the earth itself. THe difference between them makes it appear like its curving down but it isn't
The laser spot should have appeared less bright at greater distance because the extreme angle means that only a very thin sliver is visible to the camera. This is just geometry. But the important thing is that every bit of the surface is still visible.
You say I needed "another 30 or 40 feet." How do you determine that? If I did it with 50 more feet, would you just say I needed another 100 feet? And so on?
The fact is, when I'm at 58 foot observer height at the boat launch, the horizon is about 9 miles away.
On the scale model, the eye-height was 1.5mm above the surface, and by the same ratio as real life shows at 58ft observer height, the horizon should have been at 4.2 feet. And yet it wasn't anywhere even in 9 feet.
58 feet / 9.3 miles = 0.0011811665
1.5mm / 4.167 feet = 0.00118100788
So what gives? I recreate an exact scale model of a real-world observation I have, and it doesn't work.
What basis do you have for saying I need more distance? I've got more than TWICE the distance I should need. Do you have some mathematical formula that predicts this phenomena? Or do you just say "Well if it didn't work you need to make it bigger because earth is flat and so it has to work on flat earth?"
I mean I realize it's a tough point for flat earth. If you can't create a horizon on a flat surface without using bending light and temperature gradients, then you have no explanation for sunsets or bottom up obstruction in reality.
But at the end of the day, as honest people, we need to come to grips with the fact that flat surfaces in and of themselves may not actually cause horizons like you think they do.
You truly have a saintly amount of patience with the Earth Awakening crowd! Listening to Geo, at the moment, trying to tell you how to do surveying when he clearly has not studied it (he was wrong about the geodetic process as well) it's a toss up as to whether, aside from hubris, he's blinded by massive confirmation bias or it's a blatant case of Dunning Krueger. Whatever the case, you have to feel at least a little bit insulted in their refusal to acknowledge the countless hours you have put into studying the subject material, as well as purchasing and practicing with a variety of precision instruments. I seriously doubt that there is any measurement you could make, no matter how precise and carefully done, that would sway their (seemingly) cult like beliefs.
Above all, Geo is clearly NOT arguing in good faith as he simply delivers monologues peppered with what seem to be rhetorical questions while never allowing you time to answer any questions or explain, in detail, the procedures that you've used. Maddening to listen to and I doubt I'd be able to remain calm under those circumstances.
This video reminds me that I have a lot of weed eating to do when the rainy weather ends 😂
Yeah, but your table is too short to exhibit the "vanishing point" 😉 🥞
Jokes aside, I've encountered that talking-point before but it's pretty meaningless and is thus it is effectively an invalid cointrtargument.
safe bet its not long enough or some shite 🤪
Yup, that's what I'm getting... Even though at 58ft my horizon is around 9 miles on the water, at 1.5mm observer height the horizon should be at 4.5feet... But it's not.. So they just say "You gotta do it bigger" but they provide no logical or mathematical reason as to why, or as to how much bigger.
@@fromjesse intuition bro 🤣
🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
What did Jesus mean by the stars will fall from heaven: He meant what He said, the stars will fall from heaven.
And in Isaiah and Revelation when we are told all the stars of heaven will fall like as leaves from the vine and figs from the trees to the earth.
For God is not pleased without faith. I'm a chief sinner, Jesse. These analogies speak to me as though a child, that which we must be to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
I don't hear my Father's voice coming from your CZcams Channel or from you, and I know His voice, and I follow Him, and He knows me by name, and where ever He lead there shall I be.
Thankyou Jesus my God and Father for sending the message through me.
Hey brother, good to hear from you! I haven't seen you around in a while, I hope you're doing well!
Oh, Jesse. He he. You’re so clouded in your mind. Your limitation here is the counter top length. It’s always distance and angles, and your set up is too short.
Do tell! What distances and what angles are needed for a horizon to form on an equal temperature flat surface?
@@fromjessemore than you have here Dude. Equal temperature. That’s hilarious. Also, who says flat surfaces “inherently” cause anything? Who?
When we are looking out over the water to the horizon, it is not the surface causing anything. Ok? The surface is circumstantial, just like the sky. The cause of the limitation of view is always distance and elevation/angle, and the conditions of the medium.
Have you seen SKYFREE? They do micro demos where they create horizons in their home as well as out in the field. Take a look at their work.
@@theplanetruth
> _Have you seen SKYFREE? They do micro demos_
I have. They used a WARM FLOOR under COLD AIR. Not equal temperature. Light curves towards the more dense region, so of course the warm floor would have a horizon under cold air.
But the fact is, we have horizons on the ocean and lakes all the time when the water is not warmer than the air.
> _more than you have here Dude._
Well, if you don't know how much, then how can you say I don't have enough? If I doubled it, you'd still say not enough. Your only criteria is that if it doesn't show what you wish it showed, it isn't enough. But that's circular logic. That's affirming the consequent: You're using your belief in flat earth to prove flat earth.
Ugh. You’re so tedious dude.
You have claims here YOUVE NOT PROVEN. How about start with those. Look back at your comment and find your claims about bendy this and temperature that, and demonstrate your claim.
The fact that you doubled down on the distance comment that I made, it’s just proof you’re thick as a brick dude
Ugh. You’re so tedious dude.
You have claims here YOUVE NOT PROVEN. How about start with those. Look back at your comment and find your claims about bendy this and temperature that, and demonstrate your claim.
The fact that you doubled down on the distance comment that I made, it’s just proof you’re thick as a brick dude.
And no, if you doubled your distance I wouldn’t say that…bc you haven’t doubled your distance yet. So, put up, or shut up.